Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

New Research Forecasts Global 6C Increase By End of Century 746

Posted by Soulskill
from the yelling-match-begins-now dept.
jamie writes with this snippet from the UK's Independent: "The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. ... [The study] found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available. On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Research Forecasts Global 6C Increase By End of Century

Comments Filter:
  • How can they tell... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quantos (1327889) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @09:20AM (#30193102)
    How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources, is there actually a test for this?
  • What's a Farenheit? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gonoff (88518) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @09:51AM (#30193306)

    We think it might be the multiple of a groat, furlong and an acre foot.

    I wonder whether there is correlation between those who still use Fahrenheit exclusively and those who pretend that there is no such thing as man made climate change...

  • by cirby (2599) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @09:57AM (#30193346)

    It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.

    So they apparently decided to double down on their predictions, instead of trying to pretend nothing happened - but hiding the provenance.

    Anyone want to bet the lead author on the paper wasn't the lead author last week, and got "promoted" when the real researchers' names were tainted?

  • Re:Falsibility. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:03AM (#30193400)

    Given that the greenhouse effect involves a complex feedback cycle, that is not a valid assumption.

    I suggest everyone reads about ClimateGate (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d21-ClimateGate-emails-provide-unwanted-scrutiny-of-climate-scientists) and then provides his/her own
    analysis that fits best with what you believe.

    Science has become politics and hence can not be trusted anymore.

    As to why etc. I'll leave that to some else.

  • by Eukariote (881204) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:13AM (#30193484)

    A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century? Oh, how scary! Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.

    But wait, the models that make these predictions all have CO2 as the driving factor behind climate change. The historical record shows, however, that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows changes in global temperature instead of leads it. Not surprising: higher temperature -> oceans heat up -> less dissolved CO2.

    Moreover, there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what is causing the rapid climate fluctuations (historically going both up and down on a fairly short timescale): the sun. If you include the EUV and X-Ray bands of the spectrum, it becomes obvious that the sun's output changes much more than it is being given credit for: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg [usc.edu]

  • by Dunbal (464142) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:32AM (#30193640)

    It's a new form of taxation. How dare you argue against taxation! Surely you are no patriot, you must hate the Earth (and coming soon) you will be arrested and processed for daring to speak against what is obviously yet another way to reach into our pockets and waste our money on frivolous projects that employ people in useless jobs.

    As the owner of a managed forest, I have seriously looked into being paid (yes PAID) over a million euros per year to NOT cut down my trees. There is a HUGE market for carbon offsetting, and it's growing yearly. The sad thing is, it's all a scam. Since I'm not a scammer I haven't moved ahead with this.

    However what I've discovered through my own research and what my engineers have told me, is that METHANE from decomposing leaves poses a far greater "greenhouse" risk than any CO2 my trees are likely to absorb. Oh dear. But the EU pays (and taxes) based on CO2, not methane. Could it be that the government(s) are simply interested in taxing the most COMMON pollutant, and not the most HARMFUL? After all, everyone produces CO2 - industry, farmers, transportation, cows, humans. Not everyone produces methane (cow farts/burps aside).

    Climate change is REAL. Yet the recently disturbed atmosphere of Jupiter (you've heard about the NEW Red Spot, right?) and the melting martian polar ice caps (oh yeah, it's because Mars is "wobbling" but HEAVEN FORBID that Earth can be wobbling, no - it's SUV's that are to blame here on Earth!) should alert any rational person to the fact that special interests have led politicians down a path they want to go - a path that leads to more revenue for the government, in the name of man-made "global warming".

    It's amazing for me to think that even when they tax anywhere from 3 to 15% of EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION MADE (sales/VAT taxes) AND tax your income, tax your fuel, tax your capital gains, and yes, in some places, your death and your estate - GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE PISSING OUT MONEY. WTF? When does it stop? What am I getting for my money? Roads with potholes in them? Bridges that collapse? Brown outs and water shortages? Monopolies in everything from utilities to software? Justice that fails to prevent crime, feeds criminals for life in jail (that is, when they don't get released), and makes me wonder if I will get TASERed the next time I get pulled over for speeding? Oh and governments that are willing to pay people like me (only with less morals) to not cut down my forest? Hell I don't want to cut it down, imagine what 2000 acres of 80 year old teak will be worth to my great-grandchildren...

    Heh, what a world. But by all means, believe what governments tell you. After all, they're right about so many things. /cynicism

  • by Gorobei (127755) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:59AM (#30193836)

    Global Average Temperature often fluctuates by over .2C year on year. This is more a question of weather than climate. Cherry-picking various number over short term periods is more a sales job that a serious data point (Wall St excels at doing this.)

    Note that increasing CO2 and smog output may even lower temperatures in the short-term. Then the smog settles out, while the CO2 remains the gift that keeps on giving in terms of planetary warming.

    Who knows what world leaders will do? Cheapest thing is probably just to beef up their militaries and shoot incoming refugees.

  • by Silvrmane (773720) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @11:18AM (#30194020) Homepage
    Prove it. Since CO2 levels have been higher in the past, it stands to reason that sealife is already adapted to higher levels of dissolved CO2 in seawater. Experts on the subject see no damage being specifically caused by CO2 in seawater. This is not to say that there is no pressing need for action on what happens in the ocean - pollution and fishing practices (like dredging and drag nets) are causing uncountable damage.
  • Re:Falsibility. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gorgonite (79857) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @11:26AM (#30194090)
    If you look at the temperature from outer sky you might measure the heat emission from earth to outer space. The higher the temperature, the higher the heat emission. If a greenhouse effect is effective, it reduces the heat emission and thus the temperature. In this scenario there would be a lower temperature in the upper atmospheric region as long as until a new equilibrium is reached, with higher temperatures at the surface of the earth.
  • Re:Falsibility. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22, 2009 @11:26AM (#30194094)

    Why would people on the left want there to be global warming?

    Because left-wing ideology, from Marx and Mussolini to the present day, is about State control and limits on individual freedom. Irrespective of their accuracy, the theories of AGW are an excuse for a State power grab, complete with the introduction of new taxes and new laws to control how we all live.

    You remember the Patriot Act and how most of us didn't like it? AGW laws are similar: created on equally specious grounds, and with the identical aim of removing our freedoms and strengthening the state.

    Let me add, AGW does have a political dimension here in Europe, but big media does not report dissenting (skeptical) views. Big media sides with Government propaganda, especially in Britain, where the Government is constantly broadcasting commercials with our tax money: "Act on CO2" or the Green God will flood this land and drown your puppies and kittens. No, seriously.

  • by Afforess (1310263) <afforess@gmail.com> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @11:58AM (#30194384) Journal
    Have they factored in Global Dimming [wikipedia.org] though? As the pollution increases, the extra particulate matter in the atmosphere relects sunlight away from the earth. This process is one of the few negative feedback loops that occurs when we increase pollution.

    I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but if we increased the amount of particulate matter in our pollution, we could reverse the warming trend.
  • by Recovery1 (217499) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @12:01PM (#30194420) Homepage

    And you're more qualified then most other people to be able to interpret a basic line graph?

    I'm just putting this out there because you slamming a very large and ever growing crowd by calling them ignorant, unqualified and knuckle-dragging. You also go further and tell them their views don't count in this debate. And yet I don't see why I should value your views and opinions any more then I should theirs. What makes you so much better?

  • Re:The hack (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scamper_22 (1073470) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @12:05PM (#30194442)

    As a Canadian I say...

    If it is not true... wonderful climate change is not that bad.
    If it is true... wonderful... no more snow in winter!

    Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming. Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.

  • by Eukariote (881204) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @12:24PM (#30194618)

    And we know it's not an increase in solar output causing the warming we've observed.

    Sorry, we do not know that. The conclusion that it cannot be because of the sun is based on space-based measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI). These found a fairly stable 1365 W/m^2 (see for example here [wattsupwiththat.com]). But these measurements are wrong! Why? Because the EUV and X-ray part of the solar spectrum is not included.

    Take for example ACRIMSAT [nasa.gov]. It is sensitive only down to 200 nm and as such it wholly misses out on the EUV and X-Ray bands. Moreover, to properly observe the whole x-ray flux you have to capture a fairly wide field of view that includes the corona as this [lmsal.com] X-ray image of the sun shows.

  • by WiFiBro (784621) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @12:30PM (#30194664)

    Allow me to extensively quote John Cook (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html), as he is closer to the topic than I am.

    What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998 http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.OriginalPaper.pdf [elmhurst.edu]), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

    The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692171/pdf/43XA8LK6PCMVMH9H_353_65.pdf [nih.gov]). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 ( http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-741-2008.pdf [clim-past-discuss.net] ) which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

    In the skeptic blogosphere, there is a disproportionate preoccupation with one small aspect of climate science - proxy record reconstructions of past climate (or even worse, ad hominem attacks on the scientists who perform these proxy reconstructions). This serves to distract from the physical realities currently being observed. Humans are raising CO2 levels ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). We're observing an enhanced greenhouse effect ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). The planet is still accumulating heat ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). What are the consequences of our climate's energy imbalance? Sea levels rise is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). Greenland ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). Arctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). Globally, glacier ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm [skepticalscience.com] ). Antarctic ice loss is accelerating ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm [skepticalscience.com] ).

    When you read through the many global warming skeptic arguments ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php [skepticalscience.com] ), a pattern emerges. Each skeptic argument misleads by focusing on one small piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. To focus on a few suggestive emails while ignoring the wealth of empirical evidence for

  • by HiThere (15173) <`charleshixsn' `at' `earthlink.net'> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @01:24PM (#30195056)

    That's a theory, and not the only one. Seeing something in a documentary isn't proof. Many "documentaries" are fictions arguing for a particular fact. This isn't reprehensible if they are clear about what they're doing, but they should almost never be accepted as fact. In this case probably at the time the documentary was made that was the only respectable theory, or at least so dominant that it was reasonable to ignore competing theories. But times change, and I believe that now the two respectable competing theories argue origin from protozoa vs. from largely inorganic processes (starting with larger chunks of organics). (All current theories derive the origin via a mixture of organic and inorganic processes...but they vary a lot on the details. E.g., one theory finds the origin in subduction trenches.)

    So don't set your mind in stone based on a current belief at any one time. What that is is a measure of probability based on known current information, and that changes over time.

  • by Russ Nelson (33911) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @02:20PM (#30195462) Homepage

    However, the rate of climate change is far faster than previous cyclic rates.

    There have been at least 60 previous cycles, ranging between 500 and 2500 years. How do you know that the rate is "far faster" than the rate in any previous cycle? I mean, c'mon, pull the other one -- it's got bells on.

    So, if you were to do some research that went against the religion of anthrogenic global warming, exactly WHO is going to pay for it? You're not going to get it published anywhere, because it's heresy, so you can't use it towards getting tenure. You've GOT to get it paid-for by somebody, and the only people willing to fund such research are the oil companies and their allies. So the fact that science that contradicts AGW is paid-for by them in NO WAY undermines the quality of the research. Find another reason to dismiss it (like that it goes against your religion to believe that man isn't responsible for the warming).

  • by Vintermann (400722) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @02:49PM (#30195708) Homepage

    "I don't think anyone is arguing that the CO2 is not antropogenic"

    Oh yes, there are. The much quoted Australian denialist Ian Plimer, for instance, claimed very recently that "we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes". That is contradicted by isotopic evidence as well as emission accounting, but that doesn't stop him from saying it.

    Some deny that CO2 causes warming. Some deny that temperatures are rising. Some deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Some deny that humans emit significant CO2. Some deny that CO2 levels are rising. But AGW deniers quote each other for support even when their respective reasons for denial are totally incompatible. They are allied in the fight against their "establishment", just like IDers and young earth creationists are allied, and various conflicting theories of alternative medicine.are allied - and that's something that should set off people's bullshit detectors.

    By comparison, on the other side of the fence... There was a well-published spat between Mann and Von Storch about climate sensitivity a few years back. There were quite harsh words used, and for a while, Von Storch (unwillingly) became a denialist darling. But when Balunias and Soon managed to get a denialist paper published in Climate Research, Von Storch was among the editors that resigned from that journal in protest. He's not quote-mined much today.

  • Re:Hoax? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Russ Nelson (33911) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Sunday November 22, 2009 @02:53PM (#30195742) Homepage

    It's a lot more than that. You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion, and they're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request. Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it, hmmmm? Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails, and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site.

  • by rubycodez (864176) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @03:55PM (#30196244)

    I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [spiegel.de]

  • Re:No! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bnenning (58349) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @04:04PM (#30196300)

    You do realize that there are health and life insurance industries that will do everything they can to prevent this?

    Life insurance companies will be very much in favor of longer lifespans. For health insurance companies it depends on whether you're in good health for the extra years; if so, it will benefit them as well.

  • by turkeyfish (950384) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @05:33PM (#30196994)

    Those who bear false witness and say the mean world temperature is not rising have one more fact that they seem unable to explain to account for:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-nasa [guardian.co.uk]

    If is not getting warmer, why is ice melting everywhere at accelerated rates and bringing local temperatures in various places temporarily down with it?

  • actually, the stall would be BEFORE big ice melts as heat capacity of ice is much higher, to say nothing of the huge amount of energy it takes to make the phase change to liquid water. so the stall should have been much earlier, not now!

    The heat capacity of water is about 2x that of ice, and melting ice takes ~80x the energy of heating water 1C. [engineeringtoolbox.com] So any stall should happen while the ice is melting, which is apparently now.

  • Re:The hack (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dachshund (300733) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @09:47PM (#30198716)

    This data dump has been out for a week or so, and here's the damning evidence:

    # Michael Mann feels that a journal has published a sub-par paper, for reasons that are highly political, and wants other scientists to consider not submitting there. He doesn't destroy the journal or force anyone not to submit there. (1047388489)

    # Tim Osborn uses a known, published technique --- that has been widely discussed in the literature --- to deal with the fact that one (of many) datasets is inconsistent. (0939154709).

    # Phil Jones discusses his role in the assassination of skeptic John Daly!! (Just kidding, this email is tactless but has no impact on the science, and you know that perfectly well.) (1075403821)

    # This FOI stuff does sound "awful" out of context. But here's the thing --- a hacker just stole their entire database, so who needs FOI requests? I mean, if they're avoiding FOI requests to hide some malfeasance, I'm sure you guys'll find it now. But instead of finding a smoking gun, all we get are a bunch of silly emails. (1219239172)

  • by pkphilip (6861) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:35PM (#30199054)

    This is not experimental science. Experimental science involves performing an *experiment* with varying initial parameters, measuring the results and then arriving at a correlation.

    In this specific case, we are talking about measuring tree rings in Yamal - this is purely an *observational* science as the scientist isn't actually performing any experiment but just documenting observed trends.

    When you are observing trends, it is disingenuous, to include readings from a completely different set of subjects in a study which does not reference them so that the results tie into a specified hypothesis.

    This is deliberate mangling of data to serve an agenda. Let us not grace this by calling it a science - and especially not an experimental science

  • by SetupWeasel (54062) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:46PM (#30199126) Homepage

    The models were coded using assumptions, and we are talking about a chaotic system that is difficult to predict 7 days in advance let alone 70 years. In fact many of these models are based on models of ocean currents recently shown to be wrong. [futurity.org] Not that anyone seems to care.

    Then, of course, is the question of other factors that might be understated. Solar activity increased in the past 50 years too, but now we have had 18 months and that activity has vanished. Temperatures have historically increased and decreased with the increase and decrease of solar activity. It is an accepted factor in global warming [noaa.gov], but looking at Mars [noaa.gov] and Jupiter [space.com] it is strange how much extraterrestrial climate change is happening at exactly the same time. Maybe they have underestimated the Sun's importance.

    My problem is this: "Climate change" is no longer a real science. The one thing that the hacked emails proved is that Climate Change has become far too political to be called a science. You don't need stolen emails to prove that proponents of the current climate change theory are doing what they can to stifle debate. [huffingtonpost.com] When the debate is gone, there is no science.

    I am willing to admit when I am wrong, but it is not time for that yet. Solar activity may be approaching a minimum, and if it does, it will prove me right or wrong. But I am sure-- damned sure --that if global temperatures fall with the solar activity, a good many of the current scientists echoing the conventional wisdom will adjust their models to prove that they were right all along.

  • by pkphilip (6861) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @10:57PM (#30199188)

    Thanks for the name calling. I guess people like you out there are getting a little concerned now that your schemes are coming out to the open.

    Question for you:

    1) To use your capitalization PEER REVIEW doesn't mean squat if the PEERS don't have the data that you did your research on.. Or by PEER REVIEW does it mean reviews by those who agree with you on anything and won't need any RAW DATA to arrive at their findings? Are you saying that these PEERS were actually given the DATA? How is that possible? Wasn't the DATA protected by the frigging IP laws that you keep spouting about?

    2) Why is that the IP laws suddenly didn't apply when the Royal Society of Biological Sciences forced Briffa to release the data after he published an article in their journal? This data was analyzed to obtain quite a different result from what Briffa published.. Also this data clearly indicated that Briffa had used data from very few cores and there was indication that the data had been massaged to arrive at a pre-determined result.

    3) Why should I give a rats ass about your IP rights and take your word for it when you publish a "finding"? Give me the data and the methodology that you used to arrive at the finding.. but don't give me this BS that I am supposed to accept their findings because they *said so*.

    Would you be ok with the Election Office claiming that the election data cannot be released but this Candidate A did actually win the election?

    4) This is publicly funded research. If that doesn't imply that the data should be available, what does?

    5)

    1. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that all of CRU's data was stored on a single storage medium and that ALL scientists who ever worked on the data, worked on this single storage - that too on the only master storage of data without ever taking any copies of this data?

    *No, and only a complete asshat would interpret the emails that way.*

    http://constitutionclub.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/10095/ [wordpress.com]

    Phil Jones specifically claimed to have LOST ALL DATA. Perhaps you are the illiterate one here.

    See a full rebuttal to your comments without resorting to name calling and abuse. Perhaps there is something you can learn here.

  • by he-sk (103163) on Sunday November 22, 2009 @11:27PM (#30199356)

    The claim that the graph you linked to trends down after 2003 can only be supported by a very superficial reading of it. Note that there many local lows in the data stretching over 120 years, but so far the temperature has always rebounded and the next local peak was (usually) higher than the peak before it.

    Nothing in this graph suggests that the trend is reversing. For the current downward slope there simply isn't enough data to evaluate it.

    One more thing: The absolute temperature values oscillate within a single year. I believe this is caused by the seasons and vegetation patterns. The latest data point in the graph shows yearly lows for the northern and southern hemisphere. I bet the next yearly high will higher then the last peak and the downward trend you're seeing in the mean values will vanish.

  • Re:!Science (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23, 2009 @04:49AM (#30200318)

    Yeah, right. Because no one in the climate sciences has heard about Cross validation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics) ).
    And btw, if a model predicts the 1930's accurately [b]and theses years were not part of the sample set[/b], that is pretty good cross validation in my book.

  • by Xest (935314) on Monday November 23, 2009 @10:35AM (#30202452)

    LOL did you really just post a link to an Andrew Orlowski article as backing evidence whilst simultaneously talking down other sources?

    You do realise that Orlowski goes as far as outright lying in his articles yes? It's not like he just twists the truth, he outright lies where it suits his agenda.

    There is a good reason he is the only author on The Register who consistently has comments disabled on his articles you know and as someone who has sent corrections to him via e-mail when he's made what I initially put down to mistakes I can assure you he also outright ignores them and will not correct those mistakes. The guy is borderline crazy, if you're read some of his articles he often self-praises himself, there was one not so long ago where he suggested he was the only person out of a set of speakers who got an applause. He's possibly the biggest joke in IT journalism nowadays.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but sorry, it's hard to take your post seriously with that kind of non-source. Do you have any more serious sources than the single other site you listed? I ask because there's very little information about what that site is- it's base and home directories just provide blank pages so it is impossible to judge the authenticity, or validity, or whether the site has any specific bias or anything. But then, as you're lecturing people on well sourced original data then you know all this I guess.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...